Reply With Quote
How often have you been wrong?
How often has religion been wrong?
Do you have a list of the top ten religious beliefs that were wrong?
100% of science has been 100% wrong how many times?less than 0.15% of scientists disagree with evolution, and of that tiny percentage... 75% of them aren't even in the field of biology
The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories
Posted on November 24, 2010 | By Eric Berger
How often have you been wrong?
How often has religion been wrong?
Do you have a list of the top ten religious beliefs that were wrong?
if you're going to keep posting videos of the 0.15% of scientists as evidence, i find it funny that you would reject the other 99.85%
its funny that scientists discovered the mistakes and corrected them. example #1 is the geocentric universe? when scientists tried to explain that this was wrong, the church had people murdered for bringing it up
I agree that DNA needed intelligent design. It really is obvious.
Look at the science 100 years ago and today.
So how was it designed?
Yep, getting better and better. That's what science does.
No end to it....
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal—always arises from an intelligent source. So, the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.
Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or religion, but instead upon recent scientific discoveries and upon standard methods of scientific reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about what happened in the past.
Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but “religion masquerading as science.” But intelligent design is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.
Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because [they thought] the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design.
Still good.
"it" being you getting off your lazy ass to read something.
In that, I would agree.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...n.aspx#Article
At least have the intellectual honesty to cite your sources.
Not really an argument or evidence anyway. Just another flawed argument.
Claim CF003:
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 13.
Response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.htmlThis question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.
Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.
Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.
In the end it goes back to the burden of proof.
Claims require proof. Claims of "intelligent design" require proof. Positive claim, positive proof needed.
To wit:
Not that Avante would bother taking the time. We all know better. copy, paste, troll, repeat.
See above. "statisticians say..." Which ones? What is the peer-reviewed cite? none.
"scientists doubt..." Which ones? What is the peer reviewed cite? none.
It is an op-ed, and the guy spouts debunked argument after debunked argument.
"fine tuned universe"
"irreducible complexity"
"DNA information"
He sounds just science-y enough to make people who already believe it think they have a good reason to think intelligent design is a reasonable idea.
It isn't. He uses some rather laughable attempts to use statistics. "chance hypothesis has been rejected by leading origin of life scientists". Again, he doesn't offer examples.
So, let's get started on how this is wrong, and dishonest.
Why do I seriously doubt a dummy like you obviously are know more about than he does?
What are your credentials?
Only a total moron could think DNA didn't need a designer. How anyone can be stupid enought to not see that,?????
So why do we have DNA that is totally nonfunctional?
What Fckn software programmer would put in lines to program for a tail?
So you use bits and pieces from software you have already made and has NO CURRENT FUNCTION for your new program?
Your Fckn programmer is an idiot.
Oh, and so are you.
So this guy is an idiot? So I should believe a dumb got like you over him, right?
Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was en led "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
Not even a bachelor's in biology?
lol
Yes.
Yes he is.
He is a Fckn philosophy guy. I see nothing about biochemistry or biochemical evolution.
Nothing. I have a masters degree in biochemistry from UT. BS in molecular Biology. From UT. I Know most of this stuff well although my job now entails more physics and getting people like you, who know a whole lot about very little, to work as a team for specific projects they are needed for. I am not meaning to brag, but I'm telling you the way it is.
If you doubt I know what I type look it up. I am telling you the following:
We have viral sequences that have are chopped up in our DNA and we will pass on to children we have.
We have psuedogenes, multiple copies of genes like for hemoglobin, that are screwed up with inversions and translocated that are no longer transcribed that we will pass on to our children. I could continue on ad nauseum ...
Bottom line: Human DNA as some sort of work of perfection by a designer trying to achieve perfection is perfectly ludicrous.
So yes, the guy is a charlatan that does not know his stuff if you are parroting what he has stated. I guarantee it. You will one day figure out how to find more reliable sources when attempting to explain something you know nothing about.
Who designed the cancer?
Yet another example.
Why make genes that regulate the cell cycle so easy to mutate so that cells divide in an unregulated fashion?
The list is expansive and actually quite important to understand theTRUTH about.
So I need to find somebody else, that shouldn't be hard.
Be right back.
Let me guess, you know more that these guys also, right?
Last edited by Avante; 06-26-2015 at 01:34 AM.
So what does he say in this video?
Explain it to us.
I laughed out loud.
Good one Avante.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
